The Sun. — London, England, 1836-07-15 00:00:00

SECOND EDITION. SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock. E LONDON GAZE PTE THIS EVENING. ST. JAMES'S PALACE, JULY 13, 1836. This day had audience of his Majesty, General Count Sebastiani, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary from the King of the French, to take leave for a short time ; and Andrew Stephen son, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States of North America, to deliver his credentials : to which they were respectively introduced by Lord Viscount Palmer ston, his Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign affairs, and conducted by Sir Robwrt Chester, Knt., Master of the Cere monies. WHITEHALL, JULY 14. The King has been pleased to direct letters patent to be passed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, for presenting the Rev. Francis Hodgson, A.M., to the Archdeaconry of Derby, void by the promotion of the Right Rev. Father in God Doctor Samuel butler to the See of Lichfield and Coventry. WAR-OFFICE, JULY 15. Ist Regiment of Dragoon Guards—Cornet R. Hollis to be Ad • jutant, vice Hill, promoted, July 8. 2d Regiment of Dragoon Guards—Sergeant J. Haviland, to be Regimental Quartermaster, vice Dyer, deceased, July 15. 3d Regiment of Light Dragoons—Lieut. C. W. IL Balders, t o be Captain, by purchase, vice Phillips, who retires ; Cornet W. Wernham to be Lieutenant by purchase, vice Balders ; G en tl eman Cadet John Wyld, from the Royal Military College, to be Cornet, by purchase, vice Wernham, July 15. 7th Regiment of Light Dragoons.—Lieut. A. Shirl e y t o b e Cap tain, by purchase, vice Owen, who retires ; Cornet R. James, to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Shirley ; A. Helyar, Gent., to be Cornet, by purchase, vice James, July 15. 14th Regiment of Light Dragoons—Cor ne t H. E. D o h er t y t o be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Bayntun, who retires ; A. Ro bertson, Gent. to be Cornet, by purchase, vice Doherty, July 15. 17th Regiment of Foot—Lieut. J. J. Fenton, from the 38th Regiment of Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice Herbert, appointed to the 88th Regiment of Foot, July 15. 76th Foot—R. T. Scott, Gent., t o b e A ss i s t an t-Surgeon, vice W. Cannan, who retires upon half-pay, July 15. 85th Foot—Captain J. K. Pipon, from the 94th Regiment of Foot, to be Captain, vice Knox, who exchanges, July 15. 87th Foot—Second Lieutenant C. H. F. Vigors to be First Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Walsh, who retires; A. Rush, Gent., to be Second Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Vigors, July 15. 88th Foot—Lieut. H. F. Herbert, from the 17th Regiment of Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice H. F. Way, who retires upon half pay of the 38th Regiment of Foot, July 15 ; Lieut. E. A. Hawker, from the half-pay Unattached, to be Lieutenant, vice E. 11. Hutchin• son, who exchanges, July 16. 94th Foot—Capt. C. Knox, from the 85th Regiment of Foot, to be Captain, vice Pipon, who exchanges, July 15. UNATTACHED. Major F. Copland, from the 2d Dragoon Guards, to be Lieute nant-Colonel, without purchase, July 15. Commission by his Majesty's Lieutenant of the County of Brecon. J. J. E. Hamilton, Esq., to be Deputy Lieutenant, July 8. Commission by his Majesty's Commissioners of Lieutenancy for the City of London. Regiment of Royal London Militia—Sir W. 11. Richardson, Knt. to be Captain, June 8. BANK R UPTCY SUPERSEDED WILLIAM ELTON, dealer-in;O011en-C-1C;t1-1,—B—asinghall-street BANKRUPTS. GEORGE SCARLETT, jeweller, Birmingham, July 22, am Aug. 26, at Twelve, at the Union Inn. Birmingham. Chilton. Cliancery-lane ; Suckling, Union-street, Birmingham. MARTIN CHARLES GRAFTON, tanner, Alcester, War wickshire, July 28 and Aug. 26, at two, at the Red Horse Inn, Stratford-upon-Avon. .Jones, Alcester ; Adlingtou, Gregory ; Faulkner and Follet, Bedford-row. JOHN EDWARDS, carver and gilder, Shepherd's-market, May-fair, July 23, at one, and August 26, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards, official assignee. Pancras-lane, Cheap side ; Orlebar, George-street, Hanover-square. THOMAS ROE, draper, Fenny Compton, Warwickshire, Jul 2f), and August 26,• at eleven, at the Red Lion Inn, Banbury, Oxford. Aplin, solicitor, Banbury. RICHARD 'FLEMING, lodging-house-keeper, Pembroke place, Vauxhall Bridge-road, Middlesex, July 28, at two, and Aul•-wt 26, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Gibson, Ba singball-street, official assignee ; Hildyard, Furnival's Inn. ISAAC ARCHER. tailor, Regent circus, Piccadilly, July 2S, at eleven, and August 26, at twelve ; at the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, Official Assignee ; Egan, Waterman, and Wright, Essex stract, Stsand. COURSE OF EX C lIANGE.—I THIS DAY.) Amster tini C.' I". 12 1: Leghorn... Ditto, at ~i ght 11.1t.terriArn "U. 12 6 141i1a.).... ... Au , werp... Ilviiliurg . 11.1: 13 1:1 ! 'zaples Alt ,11,1..... ..`7, 55 i I.i•hon 'U. 'l5 85 ()porn) •'S 8.4 j Itio .lan: irn . Ftiril.f. - at on 31filiw, Ex. NI. 154 i , iallil Pcter..linigh, ruble 3us iR) a m,,,,,, s Ay, berllii :s s'giv ~ia:;cillr effective it ...... ‘lltto Cafti 83 to r.4!zar ........ 7 '2l days' sight II) 10 ! Cork io II 2f ; P7IICE OF BULLION, PEIZ 07. ! Portugal cold, 0 :1;34 : - orergn (:.Id, in bars 9 17 9 Ntni 1)001,111011S i IS 0 • !tiqi Nuw Dolnarti .......... 0 4 ... 48 ;Silvor, bars. s!antlarti 0 5 I_Al, (THIS EVENING.) HOUSE OF LORDS. The Loan CuANcELLuit took his scat on the Woolsack at the usual hour. The Judges Chambers Bill was read a third time and pa•-•:ed. Lord KENYON presented a petition in support of the privileges of the [louse of Lords. Lord SEFTON presented a petition from Manchester, in tiwour of die Dublin and Drogheda Railway Bill. The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE presented a similar petit:on from Clontarf, county of Dublin. - Lord HADDINGTON presented a petition from the town of Haddington, against the Scotch Universities Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND presented two petitions against Stephenson's Brighton Railway line. On the motion of the Noble Duke, the petitions were referred to a Select Committee. On the motion of Lord GLENELG the Punishmen of Offences Cape of Good Hope Bill went through a Com. rnittee. m essage f,-oni the House of Commons brought up the Constalau:ary (Ireland) Amendment Bill, the Personal Tithes Bill, and another Bill. Lord CARBERRY presented a petition from Dublin in favour of the Dublin and Droghed a Railway Bill. T he D u k e o f WELLINGTON presented a petition from Brighton in favour of their Lordships' privileges. DUBLIN AND DROGHEDA RAILWAY. Sevaial petitions were presented in favour of the Dublin and Drogheda Railway. The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE rose to move the se cond reading of the Dublin and Drogheda Railway Bill. It had lung been desir a ble t o devote the unemp l oyed capital of Ireland to speculations of that sort, and he believed the line had received the sanction and approbation of the most eminent en g i neers an d sc i ent ifi c men. A l arge subscription had been already entered into to promote the undertaking, and the majority of the landowners and landed proprietors were in favou r of it. The project had also received the support of the mercantile men of Liverpool and Manchester, and was every way a most useful and desirable work. It was in tended to continue the lice to Dundalk and Belfast, so as to give all the northern parts of Ireland the benefit of this mode of e ommuaication with the capital. The Duke of LEINSTER seconded the motion, and presented a petition in favour of the Bill. The Marquis of HEADFORD opposed the motion, as he understood there was an inland line surveyed, which was much more advantageous. The present line, he also under stood, would seriously injure the property of Col. Verner. The Bill was then read a second time. SOUTH DURHAM RAILWAY. Lord RADNOR presented a petition from the sub scribers to the South Durham Railway, complain ing that after the Company had gone to a great deal of expense, the Bill had been thrown out on its second reading. He (Lord Radnor) thought the parties had great reason to complain of the manner in which they had been treated ; it had been rejected on the motion of Lords Londonderry and Wharncliffe, without any ground or reason being assigned for such a proceeding, and without any enquiry into the merits of the question. Lord WH ARNC L IFFE defended the conduct adopted by him on that occasion. He had distinctly stated that he op posed it, because the object of the speculation was to work a vein of coal, without having obtained the sanction or consent of the landed proprietors in the neighbourhood. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE supported the pe tition. He denied the assertion of the Noble Lord oppo site that the railroad was not a public benefit. It was, on the contrary, a great public benefit, and he must say that the general imp ress i on a b road was that the opposition to the Bill had arisen from a desire to support a monopoly— (Hear.) He contended that the Bill should have been submitted to the decision of a Committee and he would say that it was the general opinion that two Noble Lords, who were deeply interested in the Bill, and in maintaining the present price of coal, had come down for the purpose of throwing out the Bill in so extraordinary a manner. Lord HATHERTON vindicated the vote he had given against the Bill, and concurred in the principle laid down by the Noble Lord (Wharncliffe) opposite, that no Bill should be forced through Parliament against the con sent of the local proprietors. He believed if all the coal proposed to be raised was sold at cost price, there would not be a demand for it. The Marquis of LONDNERY suposed the Noble Earl (Radnor) had some s D hares ß in the p undertak ing for which he evinced so much anxiety.—(A He did not think it necessary, after what had been said, to prolo ng a discussion upon a question which had been al ready decided by a very large majority of that House. He would , add, th at h e ful l y concurred in the observations of the Noble Baron (Hatherton) who ttad spoke last, and al- ~' though the present question might affect him personally, it equally on principle affected every large landed proprietor. Earl RADNOR replied. He had felt it his duty, coin ciding with the sentiments of the petitioners, to lay their case before the House.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He repeated that it was unusual and irregular for a Noble Lord, opposed to a Bill, to get up on its second reading and oppose its going into Committee. He begged, before he sat down, to ask whether the Noble Marquis opposite in tended to move the second reading of the Tremoutha Har bour Bill ? The Marquis of LONDONDERRY had undertaken the conduct of the Bill, and would move its second reading on Monday next. Messengers from the Commons brought the London and Blackwall Commercial Railway Bill, and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Agriculture. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (ENGLAND) AMENDMENT BILL. On the motion of the LOBD CHANCELLOR, the Order of the Day for taking into consideration the reasons of the House of Commons to the amendments made by their Lordships to the Municipal Act Amendment Bill, was read. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that their Lordships do agree to the first amendments made by the Commons. Lord LYNDHURST complained of the difficulty of discussing these amendments until they had been printed. After a desultory conversation, in which the Lord Chan cellor, Lords Lyndhurst, Ellenborough, and Radnor took a part, Viscount MELBOURNE said, would it not be better to have these amendments printed at once.—(Hear, bear.) z.The motion was agreed to. SCOTCH - UNIVERSITIES BILL. Viscount MELBOURNE postponed the second read ing of the Scotch Universities Bill to Thursday next. Several petitions were presented for and against the North Durham Railway Bill. Lord HOLLAND objected to so irregular a pro ceeding as presenting petitions upon a Bill which had been already decided upon by their Lordships.—(Hear, hear.) The petitions were withdrawn. Lord LYNDHURST said it would be desirable that a day would be fixed for the discussion of the Commons' Amendments to the Municipal Corporations (England) Amendments Bill. Viscount MELBOURNE would fix Monday next for that purpose. (LEFT SITTING. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER resumed the Chair a few minutes before five o'clock. Sir A. L. HAY moved for leave to bring in a Bill for constructing a pier, to be called the Trinity or North Lieth Harbour. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL felt it his duty to oppose this motion, which was of an unprecedented nature. This was a Bill for the construction of Docks—a private Bill, which required a certain number of subscribers —which required notices to be given, and contracts to be entered into ;—yet leave was asked to bring in the Bill without any of these things having been done, the former Bill having been thrown out in another place. If the Bill were allowed to pass, persons' property might he taken away without there being any funds from which to obtain compensation.—(Hear, hear.) He stood upon the orders of the House and upon the regularity of the proceedings, and then he was sure that the motion could not be agreed to. Sir A. L. HAY said he was surprised at the speech of his Hon. Friend the Attorney-General. By it it was made to appear as if the Bill had been thrown into in another place upon its merits ; and that there was no precedent for its re-introduction. The real situation of the case was this—the Bill had passed the Committee of the other House, but with such amendments as would have invalidated it altogether if sent back to the Committeetherefora the Noble Chair man of the Committee had moved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months, with the intention of its being introduced again. The Honourable Chairman cited a case in 18'27, and the Glasgow Gas Bill, as in stances in point, and precedents for the re-introduction of the Bill. Under these circumstances he would take the opi nion of the House upon the question, in order to see whether theywould deviate from the practice upon previous occasions. The measure he asked leave to propose was the same as that ormerly passed, and which had been thrown out upon a mere technical objection. It was not a Bill which would require discussion, or one which would be likely to receive any opposition in the other House. Under these circumstances he hoped they would permit him to bring in the Bill as a matter of justice and right. Mr. WI LKS said the question was whether the House would deviate from its uniform practice, and create a precedent which was wholly unknown in the annals of Parliament. The amendments were merely formal, and did not at all alter the circumstances under which the Bill was passed before. Nothing could be so graceless as the opposition now offered to the Bill, .uid he hoped it would be fruitless. Sir GEORGE CLERK thought the opposition to the Bill was most disinterested. Was it not a most astonishing fact that no person connected with commerce had any connection with it ? He did not mean to say anything against the promoters of the Bill, but he thought the names of those persons were far better known in 'Change Alley than in Scotland. He trusted that though whilst the question was uncertain, the Government would take no part in the dis cussion of a private Bill ; yet that now, under the altered state of the circumstances, the Chancellor of the Ex chequer would, for the sake of the public interests, stand forward and oppose this Bill. He hoped the House would not permit a second Bill to be brought in. Sir E. CODRINGTON thought the objection of the Earl of Shaftesbury had been made at an extraordinary period, and he considered it was not very fair for the Hon. Baronet to make the objection, he himself having been the cause of the objection.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") There was the opinion of two Admirals besides himself in favour of the locality of the harbour. It was a good harbour not only in point of locality, but as a refuge for men of war. He therefore hoped they would be permitted to bring in another Bill. Mr. HU ME considered that the Honourable Ba ronet was not justified in accusing the promoters of the Bill of blunder.—( Hear, hear.) The real truth was this. A copy of the clause that had been objected to was sent to the Noble Lord to know whether he approved of it He had approved of it so long as he thought the Bill would not pass the House. o _ _ But when the Bill had passed the House in spite of all opposition, then came the objection.—(Cries of " Order, order," and " Chair, chair.") He did not impute motives ; he was only giving his interpretation.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) It was merely a question whether they would adopt a certain harbour which would give that fair protection to the trade of Scotland which it required, strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For leave to bring in the Bill 73 Against it . _ Majority for leave to bring in the Bill l7 Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. SCOTCH MUNICIPAL BILL. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, seeing the Lord Advocate of Scotland in his place, wished to ask whether it was his intention on the Scotch Municipal Corporation Bill to include Edinburgh ? His constituents in that city were most anxious to know the determination of the Learned Lord. The LORD ADVOCATE said that it was not his in tention to include Edinburgh in the Bill, but a separate Bill would be introduced for the purpose. DANISH CLAIMS. Mr. CLAY then rose to move for the appointment of a Select C omm i t t ee on th e Danish claims. He should occupy the attention of the House for but a very short time. The faets laid in a very small compass, and th ey were, moreover, of suc h a na t ure th a t he felt quite satisfied a mere statement of them would suffice to answer the purposes of his motion. The bare statement of the ca se of the petitioners would, in his opinion, be quite enough ; and he could not enhance the effect which a simple and un adorned statement of the petitioners' case would produce. The case of the petitioners involved the cases of a great number of British subjects who suffered severe losses in 1807. A large portion of that body h a d a l rea d y rece i ve d from the bounty or the justice of that House, compensation for their losses. Money was voted in the miscellaneous estimates for 183,5 and 1836, but those who now claimed had hitherto been admitted to no participation in those funds. The Government, no doubt most h onest l y, h a d supposed th a t th ere were c ertain grounds of distinction be tween the diff erent c l asses o f claimants, and th e y h a d de cided that th e pet i t i oners h a d not a fair and equitable claim upon the fund. If the House would honour him with i ts attention for a very s h ort t i me, h e wou ld satisfy them that such a conclusion was unfounded, and that the petitioners had a good claim to have been admitted to a participation in this money which had been so awarded. He would advert lo the ground upon which the Government had re jected the claims of the petitioners, but first he would call the attention of the House to the history of the case. Iu 1807 the British Government, either having, or supposing they had reason to believe th at t h e F renc h were about t o t a k e p o ssession of the Danish fleet, in order to be used in acts of aggression against this country, sent out a fleet under the orders of Lords Gambier and Camperdown, who were instructed to ask for the fleet as a deposit, which was refused.—(Hear.) They were however, fully empowered and enjoined to get posses emu of the feet at all events. The fleet left in StitT\LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 15, 1836. August, 1807 ; all negotiation 'failed, and in September Copenhagen was bombarded and set fire to in many places. A capitulation was entered into, cnd the fleet and town was given up to the English. In consequence of the stipulations then made, the Danish fleet, and the whole of their naval stores were given up, and he entreated the attention of the House to a state ment of what was given up as somewhat material.—(Hear.) In the dispatch of Lord Gambier it was stated that in con sequence of these stipulations there were delivered up to the British fleet, 19 sail of the line, 9 frigates, 14 sloops, with all the large shipping, containing with the rest 92 car goes. On the 3d of October the British armament came away, and the British commerce in the Baltic was thus left totally unprotected. The Danish Commandant then issued a proclamation to the effect that hostilities having been commenced on the part of England, be declared, by virtue of the highest authority that all English propertd should be placed under sequestration. In the meantime there was an Order in Council of the '2d of September, 1827, to the effect that all Danish vessels in ports of England should be laid under an embargo, and orders were directed to all captains in his Majesty's service to bring in all vessels belonging to Denmark, that should be found on the high seas, and coming from the Colonies, or other ports, and that such vessels should be placed under an embargo. (LEFT SPEAKING.) IMPERI 4L PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF COMMONS, JuLr 14. CONSTABULARY (IRELAND). On the motion of Lord MORPETH, the Constabulary Act (Ireland) Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed. _ _ moved a series of resolutions, in conformity with the heads of his speech. Sir J. C. HOBHO USE could assure his Hon. Friend that he had given his attention to the matter to which the petitioners referred. He owed to the kindness of his Hon. Friend the opportunity of looking over the petition which was now brought before the House. Now in looking over the allegations contained in that petition, he could not, he was bound to say, think that the situation of India was as desperate as the petitioners seemed to consider it.— (Hear.) Some time, he thought, ought at least to have been given, to see how the new charter operated. The main complaint made in the petition, and what ap peared to be the source of it altogether, was that alle gation to which the Hon. Gentleman had first alluded. That was the 43d section of the new charter, and by which the power vested in the Supreme Court of India was now taken away from them. To give effect to the regulations of the Governor, it was necessary they should be registered in the Supreme Court. Now this was a subject which underwent a severe scrutiny in that House —whether or not that Court should have a concurrent au thority with the supreme Government. In consequence of the unanswerable arguments advanced by Lord Glenelg and Mr. Macauley this new section was introduced into the charter, and by which it was declared that no longer should a Court of Justice have that which in his opinion it ought not to have, a concurrent authority with the supreme power of the State. Any one who looked at India must be aware that many of the mischiefs which had arisen in that coun try were owing to this very power being lodged with the Supreme Court. He was sure that the Hon. Member for Middlesex must confess that it was best to have authority vested in the Supreme Government ; and in cases of emer gency, in the Governor-General of India. It was for the benefit of the Government and the governed that there should be a centralization of the supreme power in one high authority. What did the complaint amount to after all ? Whereas, according to the old system, Government was able to legislate for the whole of India, with the exception of some districts, it would now legislate for all India, includ ing those districts. Nothing could bemore absurd than the complaint, that because a provision had been made to do equal justice to Europeans and natives, they, therefore, la ' mented that there was a law for all—that Europeans and natives should be tried by the same tribunals, and no exception made in favour of any one class.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Another point touched upon by his Honourable Friend was the abomination of Heyleybury, and the not giving promotion to the natives. The Act was only nine months in operation, and yet these petitioners took upon themselves to declare that it was not the inten tion to promote natives. Now he could say that the very contrary was the intention of the Government, and he was sure that it would be fully acted upon by the Noble Lord now at the head of the Indian Government. With respect to Heyleybury, he could say for himself, that he felt exceed , ingly unwilling to do away with an institution intended to form young men for filling situations of great importance in that vast empire, of which they had the government. If, however, it should appear that it was not proper to continue that establishment, then he should be prepared to do away with it. Now, as to the ecclesiastical establishment, he was not answerable for it. It was commenced in 1813, and there had been only added upon that ground by his Hon. Friend an additional charge of 1,0001. a year. He had yet to learn, however, that it was not proper to allocate a portion of their revenues to an establishment for the pur pose of propagating Christianity. The native to whom re ference bad already been made, said he felt no interest in the religion for which the money was given. Why he (Sir J. C. Hobbouse), did not know that the same person felt an interest in the Government, and therefore might object to pay taxes to it.—(Hear, hear.) That person might prefer the Rayabs, or the Mussulmen, as his rulers —and if they were to consult the persons over whom they ruled, they would never be able to lay on a tax ; they could not raise a tax but for an object purely national, and in that case they would in a short time have to give up taxes altogether.—( Hear.) His Hon. Friend complained that dividends were secured by Act of Parliament. Why, that was part of the bargain. They were at all events bound to secure their property, which had previously never been in danger. His Hon. Friend said that the Board of Control had nothing to do ; he assured him they bad a great deal to do. The duties he had to discharge were greater than in any of the offices he previously held. Another part of the complaint was, that there was 21 per cent. charged upon English manufactures, and 30 per cent. upon Indian manufactures. How would the Indians like an equalization of the duty, by raising that imposed upon the English to be equal to theirs ? Was that what his Hon. Friend complained of ? He was certain that he should have no objection if his Right Hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade could lower the duties. —( Hear, hear.) His Honourable Friend then com plained that there was nothing done with respect to the duty on salt. Why, taking, into consideration the very large revenue received from it, it was very natural that they should be apprehensive in touching ft.—(l-fear.) His Honourable Friend had stated the revenues of India incorrectly ; he gave 22,000,000/. as the revenues of India. They were, in fact, 18,350,0001., and salt comprised a very considerable item in that revenue. Opium, also, to which his Hon. Friend had adverted, was another conside rable item. Were they, then, prepared to take away at once those two taxes without some substitute for them ? (Hear, hear.) He was sorry to add that, instead of a large, there would be a very small, surplus from India.— (Hear, hear.) Mr. HOGG had read the petition now before the House, but did not find in it one word or one topic com prised in the resolution which they were now called upon to move. There was nothing, for instance, about either salt or opium in it. No doubt any commercial monopoly was a grievance, but be did not consider the salt tax such a monopoly ; it was merely and purely a means of collecting a revenue. He hoped the Hon. President of the Board of Trade would consent to admit a little of his principle of free trade and reciprocity into operation with regard to India. Mr. J. M'KENZIE said that when the resources of India were fully developed, the people of this country would be surprised at the ignorance under the operation of which they had so long been induced to uphold the exclu sive system with regard to India. Mr. P. THOMPSON thought the Hon. Member for Middlesex was hardly excuseable from the charge of inad vertence at least, for presenting a petition the allegations of which he knew to be unfounded. He denied the fact that a system of discriminating duties was kept up in regard to India. At the time this petition was framed, there were not more than three articles upon which discriminating duties existed between the West and East Indies—namely, spirit, sugar, and tobacco ; and that upon sugar was now in course of being reduced. \Vith respect to spirits, he did not mean to say that he would have any great objection to reduce the duties upon them, but because that had not been done hitherto, was that any reason why it might not still be done some future day? As to tobacco, he was in clined to look upon it in a very different light—namely, as, a most important revenue article, 3,000/. worth of it pro ducing a revenue of 3,000,000/. If this duty was to be taken off, they would have immediately to seek elsewhere for some other article on which to levy a higher duty, in order to make up the deficiency. In conclusion, he must repeat that he thought he had a right to complain of this attempt to raise a grievance where none really existed. He felt sure that the conduct of Government, during the last few years, was such as to show that they had the greatest anxiety to afford every possible measure of relief, and to consult, in every way, the interests of our East India con nections.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. BUCKINGHAM approvedgenerally of the course which the Government of this country had of late years adopted towards our Indian connections, and he trusted they would be induced to follow up what they had al ready done by taking off the remaining duties which still pressed upon them. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the principle upon which the Government had acted towards the Indian settlements was precisely that which had been fully explained to those connected with those interests in the first instance, and which had been fully and cordially acquiesced in by them. That principle was, that they had to make their election between being an exporting or an importing country, but that both they could not justly be. After a few words from Mr. A. CHAPMAN and an. other Member, which were inaudible, Mr. HUME replied. The resolutions were severally negatived without a di vision. POST-OFFICE. Mr. WALLACE having been requested to put off his motion for certain resolutions relative to the Post-office, which stood upon the paper for that day, with a positive assurance that the Post-office Bill would come on to-mor row, had no objection to postpone his motion till then. BRITISH POSSESSIONS IN INDIA. Mr. HUME rose to present the petition of which notice had been given, relative to the British possessions in India. He did so in consequence of the arrangement that had been made last night relative to the subject. Mr. GOULBURN objected to the Hon. Member's proceeding, as he believed the understanding of the House to be that the Government business was to proceed first. He thought, if the Hon. Member were allowed to proceed, it would be attended with great inconvenience. Colonel SIBTHORP also objected to the Hon. Mem ber's proceeding. Sir ROBERT PEEL thought it would be a bad pre cedent to allow the Honourable Member to bring for ward his motion. He should therefore object to such a precedent being established, as it might tend to great partiality. He certainly understood that the Orders of the Day—those over which the Government bad controul—were to be taken in a certain order, and the first intimation he had that it was to be departed from was, when he was told that the particular notice of the Hon. Member for Middlesex was to take precedence. Mr. H UME said this was a peculiar case, and he had stated so when he presented the petitions. He then got leave to bring his motion on yesterday, but gave way to the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, who promised that he would not throw any obstacle in the way to-night. Sir R. PEEL said it was not a matter of per sonal inconvenience to himself, but he could not allow it to be drawn into a precedent. The Hon. Gentleman said he had only two notices for that night, but it was to be remembered that there were 658 Members in the House, and if they had all taken the same course as him, how could the business of the House go on ? Be sides it ought not to be in the power of any Hon. Member, by any arrangement to bring on his petition notices in such an irregular manner. He would content himself at present with merely entering his protest against the precedent. Mr. HUME asked the matter merely as an indulgence, and not as a right. If the House were against him lie would not go on.—(Hear, and cries of "Go on.") He had presented a peition from Calcutta, which was agreed to at a public meeting, he believed the first one which had ever been called by a Sheriff in that country. When lie stated that the welfare of 80 millions of people were in volved in the petition, they would consider it not as an ordi nary one, but as one worthy of important attention. The petitioners complained of the alterations of the law made by the late legislation with respect to the charter. Previ ous to that period, the Supreme Court was without con ,troul—they took the protection of all British subjects, and were not subject to the controul of the Governor or the Council. By that Act a complete change had been made—the powers of the Supreme Court were made subservient to the will of the Governor. There was, he was most happy to say, no charge made against his Noble Friend, the late Governor-General (Lord W. Bentinck), but the community were anxious that their liberties should rest where they had always done before, in the hands of the Supreme Court of Judicature, without any control by the Governor in Council. The Government and Council were not responsible, save only to that House and to his Majesty. Without notice or intimation, Acts were passed by which regulatiops were made by the Government, although those Acts and regula tions interfered in a most important way with the liberties, rights, and properties of the people of India. The petitioners complained, therefore, that such a state of things should be allowed to pass that House, by which they were placed out of the pale of the English Const;tution, and under the law and pleasure of the Governor-General.—( Hear.) They had seen Governors-General in many parts of their colonial territories behaving in such a manner, that he was sure that many who had witnessed their proceedings in the Colonies, would be very unwilling to leave their most important colony at their disposal. What the peti tioners prayed for was, that this House should at an early period take into consideration the laws made by the granting of the Charter, and that they would again place them under the protection of British law, and not leave them under the authority and will of the Governor-General. After the abuses in the Government of Mr. Hastings, that House had decided, as the only and best means of pro tecting the rights of British subjects, that the Supreme Court should be armed with power, independent of the Governor-General of India.—.(Hear, hear, hear.) If the House had thought it requisite to pass the law of which these petitioners complained, he hoped they would take an early opportunity of revising it. In that country there were upwards of a million of persons under the protec tion of the British laws, which had been withdrawn with out any notice. The petitioners complained that by the 43d section, absolute power was given of such a nature that it could not exist with any thing like satisfaction or comfort to the community over which it was exercised. They complained that the Act had been passed solely and exclusively for the benefit of individuals at home, and of the East India Company, without reference to the interests of India or the great bulk of itsjpopulation. A clause had been introduced (the 82d) g ivin g Me natives power to bold office, but such was the nature of the restric tions they were subjected to, that that admis sibility had hitherto remained a dead letter. They said that the House was little attentive to their in terests ; that they had given great sums to the Esta blished Church 4 but bad done little or nothing for the Hindoos and natives. The petitioners also complained that the Act had paid no attention to the promotion of education or the spread of its advantages in the country. He (Mr. H.) regretted that the subject of education had been so much neglected, because he did not know any thing that was more likely to increase the wealth of the country. The next point to which he would call the attention of the House was the commercial disabilities of India. He was happy to see that the principal article, sugar, had been met by His Majesty's Government. They had, in this, acted wisely ; and he only regretted that their operations had been limited.—(Hear.) It was extremely objectionable that Bengal alone should be admitted to this benefit. Every part of their territory, Madras and Bombay, ought to be admitted, and he hoped they would. The sooner this monopoly was removed the better.—(Hear.) He regretted the narrow policy of this measure, and was sorry that Government did not take a more comprehensive view of the matter. One ground of complaint on the part of the natives of India was, that their trade and manufactures were ruined by the competition of the English market. English cotton was admitted into India at 2 per cent., whilst India cotton was charged here 10 per cent.; and whilst the woollen manufacturers of India were charged in this country 10, 1,5 and 25 per cent., th e woo ll en manu f actures o f Eng land were admitted into India at a duty of 21 per cent. He (Mr. Hume) would ask, w as thi s equ al justice ? For instance, why should not rum from India be al lowed to be imported at 9s. as well as the Colonies, in place of 15s. as they now paid ? Why should to bacco pay more from India than from other colonies ? It was the same with black pepper, and many other articles of immense importance which he would not then men tion. He hoped the Government would consider it their duty to equalize the whole scale of duties next session, in the same manner in which they bad done that of sugar this session. There was now a Committee sitting on the article of Salt. He would say that as the duty was falling off so very fast, it could not be in a healthy state, and hoped the Government would take some steps to abolish the monopoly on so necessary an article of human consumption. The Hon. Gentleman read extracts from speeches of Ministers in 1833, and he hoped they would early next session carry out the - promises then made, which would be for the benefit o this Country, as well as of India. The Hon. Member then ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, it was agreed that the House should meet at twelve o'clock to morrow (this day), i n or d er t o g i ve an o pportunity to hear the petition of Catharine Robson and Isabella Ainsbury, next of kin of Samuel Troutbeck, late of Madras, mer chant, and claimants of his property, now vested in the Crown. STAMP-DUTIES BILL. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER, the Committee on the Stamp-duties Bill was postponed until Monday next. ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL. The Report on this Bill having been brought up, Mr. ESTCOURT gave notice that, on the third read ing, he should move the insertion in the preamble of the name of the late Bishop of Durham, the Right Rev. William Van Mildert. Lord J. RUSSELL thought there were technical ob jections to such a motion ; but would reserve his observa tions until the Bill arrived at the stage mentioned. Mr. CAYLEY objected to the manner in which this and other measures relating to the Established Church had been hurried through the House. He thought that in these days it was a monstrous thing to grant the revenues of the see of Durham to the support of the College, with out opening it to all classes of the King's subjeets. Mr. LENNARD concurred in the observations just made by his Hon. Friend ; and added, that his were also the opinions of the inferior clergy of the diocese of Durham. Mr. POULTER must object to a measure founded on principles contrary to those which were indispensable to the final and satisfactory settlement of the great question at issue. If the House called before them the necessary evi dence, they would find that there might be derived from the income of the dignitaries of the Church a large surplus that might be more advantageously employed. He was convinced that no less a sum than 25,0001. might be de rived from that source, with which forty or fifty benefices might be created in populous districts in which they were needed. Why not, also, release Archbishops, and Bishops in dividually from all temporal matters, such as granting leases, &c., and allow them to devote themselves exclusively to spiritual concerns, by vesting the estates of the Church in a Board of Archbishops and Bishops ? Let his Majesty's Ministers, who were no doubt honourably ambitious of fame for their political conduct, add to it the fame which would attend measures in which the real interests of the Church were consulted. As the Church of England now stood, it was evidently declining. There was another point that demanded attention. If they wished to conciliate the Dissenters, and to draw to the Church of England those who were at present in communion with it, let them look a little to the Liturgy and Articles of that Church. Let them consider whether they might not advantageously ex punge the Anathanasian Creed, and some of the Articles ; for instance, that which spoke of works as splendid sins. Mr. PLUMPTRE did not say that the Church was faultless, but he did say that the assertion of the Hon. Member for Shaftesbury, that it was on the decline, was unfounded. Mr. C. BULLER complained of the manner in which so important a measure was hurried through Parliament. Mr. ROBINSON was a great friend to the Establish ment of the Church of England, but did not think that this Bill was at all calculated to conduce to its real and permanent benefit. He was decidedly opposed to the translation of bishops, to the small stipends of some of the working clergy, to pluralities, and to non-residence ; and although he did not agree with the Hon. Member for Shaftesbury in all respects, he admitted the justice of his observation, that we ought to take such steps as might conciliate and attract those who were not of our com munion. For the attainment of all the objects to which he had alluded, the Bill fell short of providing adequate means. He wished the archbishops and bishops to be duly provided for ; but lie never could believe that their present splendid revenues could conduce to the benefit of the Church itself. So far from it, in his opinion they did that Church great harm. He regretted, also, that the motion which had recently been made in that House for the aboli tion of the translation of bishops had been rejected. He should like to see the measure postponed to another session. Mr. HUME would put this single proposition to the Noble Lord who had the charge of this Bill. That' Noble Lord had postponed the Church-rates Bill to next session, on the ground that there was no time for it ; and yet that referred only to the appropriation of about 250,0001. Now if there was not time for that minor measure, he put it to the Noble Lyrd how there could be time for the present larger and more important measure ? How could the Noble Lord think of passing, in so hurried a manner, a Bill which allowed the Church Commissioners to do what they pleased ? He had, not half an hour ago, received a resolution, signed by the united Committee of Dissenters, and which embodied all the opinions that he (Mr. Hume) had expressed on the subject. (The Hon. Gentleman here read the resolution.) He could see no reason why an Archbishop of Canterbury should have 15,0001. a year ; or why the bishops should have more than 3,0001. or 4,000/. a year, as the judges had, except as a matter of whim. He would move as an amendment, that the report be read a second time that day six months. Sir ROBERT PEEL was of opinion that his Majesty's Government, having duly considered what were the best means of securing a measure of practical Church reform, had had actually brought forward a measure of great prac tical reform. If the House rejected the Bill, they would reject a great benefit. If, for instance, the House rejected the Bill, they would enable his Majesty's Government, in the event of a vacancy occurring in the diocese of London, to appoint a bishop who would retain all the emoluments that at present belonged to that see. If the House agreed to press that Bill they would 'establish the principle that the maximum revenue of the Bishop of London should not exceed 10,000/. a-year. He (Sir R. Peel) cordially ap proved of the course to be t a k en by th e King's Govern ment on the present occasion. He apprehended that the Bill proceeded upon the principle that the bishops were to continue to sit in the House of Lords.—(Hear, hear.) If that were the fact, he thought that the House, when it came to consider the expenses to which the bishops were subjected from the necessity of residing a portion of the year in London, independent of the claims upon their cha rity and benevolence, would see that the amount of emo lument proposed by this Bill to be left to the office of bishop was by no means extravagant.—(Hear, hear.) An Hon. Gentleman opposite had asked why the income of each should not be limited to 4,500/. a year. When that question was put he thought sufficient consideration was not given to what must necessarily be the difference in the expenditure of the holders of different bishoprics -4,5001. a year might be an abundant income in one bishop ric, whilst in another it would hardly be more than suffi cient to provide for the ordinary claims upon the benevo lence of the diocesan. Under the provisions of the present Bill the incomes of the present majority of the bishops would vary from 4,0001. to 5,0001. a year. The utmost difference between them would not exceed 7001. or 800/. a year, yet some of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to think that they would be sufficient to influence their politi cal conduct. He confessed that he could not join in such extravagant notions of the corruption of human nature. The amount of fees, and the many other expenses conse quent upon the translation of a bishop, would leave so small a pecuniary inducement to obtain a translation as to render it extremely improbable that any would sacrifice a political opinion for the sake of obtaining it. Upon the whole, he still thought the Bill might be very beneficially, adopted, and that no delay ought to be opposed to its progress in the present session. —(Hear, hear.) Mr. POUL TER offered a few words in explanation. Mr. M. PHILLIPS expressed his determination to sup port the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Middlesex. Mr. A. TREVOR should certainly in this instance, if the motion were pressed, feel himself bound to support the proposition for delay. Mr. F. BUXTON'S opposition to the Bill was that it made no provision for increasing the means of the smaller clergy, whilst it contained the payment of enormous salaries to the great dignitaries of the Church. Lord J. RUSSELL would not again go over the prin . eiples of the Bill, which had already been fully stated ; but there were one or two points which had arisen in the course of the discussion upon which he thought some little explanation was required. First, with respect to the time at which the measure was brought forward. Those Hon. Gentlemen who had expressed a determination to support the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Middle sex argued as if the House had been taken by surprise upon the subject. But he begged the House to recollect that during the administration of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) a report was presented to Parliament, and circulated throughout the country, containing the outline of the very plan now submitted in the present Bill, stating generally that the incomes of the two arch bishops and of the bishops of Durham, Ely, and London should be larger than the rest, and that the average income of the rest should range from 4,0001. to 5,0001. a year. That being the case, he really must say, that after the lapse of fifteen months, in the course of which no opposition was made either by the clergy or by the friends of the Church, to the proposed plan, it was now rather too much to say that there could be any surprise at a Bill being brought in upon the subject.—(H ear .) In the same way with respect to the alterations proposed in the case of deans and chap ters of cathedrals, the outline of the plan proposed to be pursued with regard to them was agreed to in a report made by the commissioners, and presented to the House on the 10th of March. That report was immediately circulated amongst all the Members of the House, and published in the different newspapers upon the termination of the month. Upon that point, then, it was equally incorrect to say that the House could in any way have been taken by surprise. The Hon. Member for Middlesex had stated as a reason for not proceeding with the present measure that the ques tion of church rates ought first to be settled ; but when the Hon. Member advanced that as a reason for delay, he thought he ought to remember that when the measure relating to church rates was before the House, the argument of the con siderable minority who had voted against it was, that the Legislature was not at that moment aware of the extent of Church property, and that no Bill, with respect to church rates ought to be adopted until the extent of the whole of the property had been ascertained. Now, however, Hon. Gentlemen seemed disposed to turn round and to say, " No ; we we will not consider this measure until the ques tion of church-rates has first been determined." There certainly appeared to him (Lord John Russell) to be some inconsistency in this. Mr. HUME—Let, us take them both together? Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that the course pro posed by Government was by far the fairest and most con venient mode of dealing with the question. It was, he must say, an extravagant hyperbole of the Hon. Member for Middlesex, to say that this was a Bill to promote the trans lation of Bishops.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman, at the very time he made such an assertion, must be very well aware that, under the existing system, the incomes of some of the bishoprics were very large, whilst the ineCales of others were comparatively extremely small. Under provisions of the Bill now proposed, he felt quite satish7t., that the great object of every bishop would be to establislA himself permanently in his diocese, instead of looking for a:. removal which would add only a few hundred pounds per annum to his income. —(Hear, hear.) Most of the high dignitaries of the Church were men far advanced in life before they were raised to the episcopal bench. Was it likely that men of 60 or 70 years of age would go into the House of Lords for the purpose of giving votes of which they did not conscientiously approve, for the sake of being removed to some larger, and (to the extent of a few hun dred pounds) more lucrative diocese ?—(Hear, hear.) Mr. WARBURTON could not help thinking that this Bill was at variance with the principles laid down on former occasions, not only by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Feel), but by the Hon. G e ntlemen who sa t, on t h a t (the Ministe r i a l) side of the House. • The question was then put, and the House divided, when the numbers were— For the amendment 43 For the original motion Majority for bringing up the Report —47 The Report was then brought up. Mr. A. TREVOR moved the insertion of a clause for fixing the amount of the income of the present Bishop and ail future Bishops of the diocese of Durham at a sum not less than 10,000!. per annum. The Hon. Member then moved that a proviso to the effect stated be added at the end of the 10th clause. The question was then put that the clause be read a first time.—(Cries of " No, no.") Lord JOHN RUSSELL would not oppose the clause being brought up and read a first time, but he should cer tainly oppose the second reading of it. The House then divided on the question that the clause be read a first time— Noes 133 Ayes 0 Majority against the clause —133 Mr. CHARLES BULLER then moved a clause, pro viding that th e sa l ar i es o f a ll Bi shops should be equalized, except that of the Bishop of London ; and that until due provision shall have been made for the adequate payment of the parochial clergy and for the supply of relieirius instruc tion to those parts of the country stated in the Report of the Commissioners to be destitute thereof, the Archbishop of Canterbury shall receive 8,0001., the Archbishop of York 7,0001., the Bishop of London 4,500/., and the other Bishops 4,000/. per annum. The Hon. and ,Learned Gentlemansthen proceeded to remark on the low rate of remuneration of the working clergy. He said it appeared from the Report on the table of the House, that the resi dent clergy employed by the resident incumbents numbered 1,006, and their stipends on the average were 86/. a year. The non-residents numbered 4,224 ; and their stipends averaged 79/. a year. Thus the total number being 5,230, the average stipends were 81/. a year. If it were a•ques tion between the bishops and the working clergy he should say they ought to look to the working clergy first.—(Hear.) The Government, however, had followed the contrary plan ; their first consideration appeared to have been to provide large salaries for the bishops. What had the Govern ment done ? A Bill had been brought in, in which a great deal was said about deans and chapters, and no doubt it would excite the admiring gaze of the public when they came to examine its details.----(Hear, hear.) The Bishops being politicians, had been objected to, and it was said that. he wished to make them independent of the Go vernment ; but in the purposed arrangement all kinds of temptations were held out to them. The incomes began at about 4,000/. a year ; then there were several at 5,000/. ; the next step was 7,000/. ; up to the see of Durham it was 8,0001. ; 10,000/. was to be the income of the Bishop of London, and the Archbishop of York ; and 15,000/. was the amount proposed for the Arch bishop of Canterbury. His first proposal was to equalise the incomes of all the Bishops, making an exception in favour of the Bishop of London, on the ground that ho was a fixed resident in a most expensive place ; he thought it was necessary on this account to give to the Bishop of London a little more than to the others. He not only proposed to equalise the incomes of the Bishops, but also to reduce them. As his guide in fixing the incomes, he had taken the scale of payment of the very highest paid profession in the country, and that was the pro fession of the law. He put aside the income of the Lord Chancellor, however, not considering that a permanent income ; but with that exception, he had taken the highest rate of pay for service to the public that could be got. He could not imagine any reasonable objection to his plan, unless it were said to be unjust to pay the clergy and the bishops at the same rate as members of the law were paid, there being this difference between th e profes sions, that the one dpended for success on the posses sion of individual talent, and having surmounted their early difficulties, and reached the top of their profession, they secured to themselves almost a monopoly of the business, and derived large sums from it. Such was not the case with the clergy. In his opinion, the fair scale of remune ration for the clergy would be that of the army or navy ; indeed, at present, the working clergy had nearly the same sums as the subalterns of the army wero paid ; it was iu the higher stations that the great difference existed. —(Hear.) Officers in the army and navy were very happy if they obtained 300/. or 4001. a year. He proposed to give to the bishops much higher incomes than that. And, by the way, he would here remark, that he did not see why the high sense of an honourable occupation should not animate the clergy as governed those devoted to the other profes sions in place of the ordinary desire of accumulating wealth. An officer in the army was proud of wearing the King's uniform, and was encouraged by that distinction to brave the dangers of the field. The bishop, on the other hand, fought under the banner of the cross ;• he was engaged irn the constant struggle against the enemy of mens' souls to save souls. Were his motives to be supposed to be of so low a nature that they must treat him as they would hired mercenaries, and crown him for the fight, or tempt him by the prospect of plunder.—(Cheers.) As he had said uefbre, he proposed to fix the scale of the incomes of the bishops and the archbishops according to the highest scale of remuneration in the legal profession, except the income of the Lord Chancellor. To the Archbishop of Canterbury he would give the same income as was received by the Lord Chief Justice of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury bad no duties to perform which required travelling, whereas the Chief Justice of England went the expensive circuits every year. The income of the Archbishop of York he would reduce to the miserable pittance of 7,000/. a-year.. He took for his guide here the income derived by the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. He sup posed he should not be charged with a desire to reduce the bishops to beggary. The office of the Master of the Rolls, every one knew, was the best office in the gift of the Crown. The Minister was thought lucky who had it to bestow, and the person was thought lucky who succeeded in obtaining it. The income was 7,000/. a-year. The great advantage of the situation was its permanency, and the office of the Archbishop was equally permanent. Then the labours-of the Master of the Rolls were known to be severe, and no one would pretend that the duties of the Archbishop were laborious to anything like an equal extent. To the Bishop.. of London he would give 4,5001. a-year, which was the sum. allowed to the common-law Lords. It might be said that. the Bishop had to maintain a peerage, but he hoped we , had not yet come to this, that it was to be considered no• advantage to have the honour of a peerage without a very large income to support it. The Judge, on the other hand, had to pay out of his income the expenses of his circuits each year. To the remainder of the bishops he would give 4,0001. a-year each. Such was his proposition, and he should be sorry if it were considered a very heinous and malicious attack on the Church.---( Hear, hear.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was impossible that he could agree to the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman. In his opinion, the comparison which had been: made by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was quite in applicable. Between the situation of the bishops and that of the members of any of the professions referred to by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, there was a vast difference. • The bishop had to maintain a large establishment, to ob serve hospitality, to contribute to the work of charity, and to preserve his position amongst those who possessed large • landed property ; while persons engaged in other profos sions were not liable to such serious charges on their in- • comes. He thought that to reduce the means of the bishops and archbishops in the way proposed, would exceedingly impair the efficiency of the Church. Mr. A. TREVOR protested against the insinuations directed against the Church. Sir L. PARRY should support the motion. The Bi shop of Bangor had only 3,800/. a year, and he maintained out of that means a great number of distressed local clergy. —(Cheering.) Why would they take the tithes from Manchester for a bishop in Wales ? The people of Man chester did not wish for a bishop ; but, if they did, they certainly did not desire to have a bishop at the . expense of Wales. Mr. VILLIERS supported the motion. The House then divided— For the clause 44 Against it Majority —3B The Report was then agreed to. GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) BILL. The House then went into Committee on this Bill. Clauses up to 138 were then agreed to, with the excep tion of clauses 93, 94, 99, and 117, which were postponed. The Chairman reported progress, and the House resumed. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a Quarter after Two. HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 14. ROYAL ASSENT. The Royal Assent, by Commission, was given to the Following Bills, the Commissioners being the Lord "Chan• -